Elamdri's page

Organized Play Member. 1,613 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters.

1 to 50 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
We use 5 foot squares as often as we can and as often as it's appropriate... but in the cases where you see us use 10 foot squares... that's the right choice for the map. Especially when we're trying to provide maps of particularly large locations that at 5 foot squares wouldn't fit on a half page or full page map. (And printing multiple pages of maps isn't an option, really, since that reduces wordcount and increases the amount of words we need due to there being more encounter areas...)

Would you at least consider making digital map packs with 5ft scaling for those of us that use programs? It's much easier to utilize the map when it's 5ft because it means I don't have to re-scale it in a photo-editing program. And honestly I'd pay for the convenience.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who uses tokens/minuatures as well as plays often on virtual tabletops, I've gotta say that every time I see a map in a module with 10ft squares I cry out in utter frustration. Every time you do this, it's so much extra work on my part as the GM to go and try and scale this map properly so that I can use figures or use it on a virtual tabletop and not run into countless problems trying to figure out spacing, reach, token size, ect.

Paizo, I love you guys, but please, you're killing me with the 10 ft. Maps. I just spent the past 5 hours just trying to perfect the maps from Jade Regent 4 when it should have taken like 30 minutes.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess can someone provide me an example of what they think is a rule in Pathfinder that is holding them back from having a more narrative game? Because I am wondering if perhaps we are meaning two different things.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno, personally I've never really thought that making a game narrative or cinematic had anything to do with the rules to be honest.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
Is this the bugger? Or is that unofficial?

I think that's fanart, but it's good enough for my purposes. I was hoping maybe I could pick up the facecards as PDFs to extract the images, but doesn't look like the cards are available in PDF format which is a shame because Paizo's PDFs are so great to work with for Virtual Tabletops.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why must you ruin my dreams with facts?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends on the situation, I'll make due with whatever full cover I can get.

One time I was playing a game where we were fighting some dudes in a courtyard and I was in a 2nd story window overlooking the courtyard. Casted a spell, fell prone so I couldn't be targeted through the window. Next round, stood back up, casted another spell, fell prone again.

Was amusing to hear "Some ***hole is sniping us with a wand of magic missile from the window"

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
"Why yes he does indeed. Now what's yours like?"

My AC as a summoner is usually whatever the wall I'm cowering behind has.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We kept coming back to magus a lot as a really good class to combine.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So the other night I introduced a friend of mine to the concept of gestalt classes and he really got into it. We spent a lot of time tossing out ideas for some good options, but none of us have ever really run a game with them before.

I was curious as to what some of the best options that are available, assuming that you have the ability scores to make it work.

There are some classes that seem like they would work really well, like Paladins, Magus, Alchemist, Barbarian, Inquisitors, and Wizard/Sorcerers, with a lot of our stuff coming back to classes like Magus that have better action economy for their abilities.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I don't have a problem with a player donating to the church, Tithing is a bit too Judeo-Christian for my tastes, breaks verisimilitude.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"And I say ladies and gentlemen, the power of Sarenrae is a-flowing through ya! PRAISE the Dawnflower and ya shall receive her POWERFUL healing into ya body, amen!

Ma'am, I say Asmodeus BEGONE from your body, in the name of Sarenrae. Sarenrae is BURNING the cancer from your body, Amen!"

...Yes, this is a thing that is going to happen now.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because I find it unlikely that you will be able to recover every single tiny bit of your fractured arrow.

Mending and Make Whole in my opinion weren't designed with this purpose in mind.

Regardless, I doubt that you will find someone willing to repair your arrows for you, and it's unlikely that the classes using them will have the spell.

If someone came up to my wizard wanting me to spend HOURS fixing the 20 or so arrows he fired in a combat, I'd politely tell his cheap *** to go buy some new ones and bother me when he had an important problem that needs dealing with.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

^Sounds like be a huge cheeseweasel in my opinion. Summoners get the most powerful wizard spells in the game 1, sometimes 2 levels before a regular wizard does.

You are telling me I could take Mystic Past Life and cast Greater Planar Binding, Maze, Summon Monster 8, and Dominate Monster all as 6th level spells?

The absolute definition of broken.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fight nice.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I was in this situation as a ranger in 4e. With the powers and magic items I had it was literally impossible for the "army" that "captured us" to capture ME. Literally. The GM tried to tell me "it just happens" and I said more or less the following:

"Look, I built this PC explicitly to make this sort of thing not work. If you want to capture me without a fight legitimately by the rules it's going to take more than you brought here. Sure I can't beat this crowd, but I can damn sure get away from them.

But, this is clearly your story goal and instead of blowing your story I'll have to break character and have my neutral character with tracking skills agree to surrender so the game can continue. But let's both be aware that at this point this is pure metagaming for the purposes of keeping your story going because if this was really happening and these characters were real, my character would be long gone."

So he was captured and we went through the entire trope of being helpless and gloated over by the evil bad guy all the while knowing that the evil bad guy was going to do something insanely stupid so that we could get away.

OK, fine. We did it. It was challenging. It was "interesting". It was all in line with the GM's story and were were "well rewarded" when we escaped and defeated our captors.

But the whole entire thing was all about the GM and I was more or less forced to either deliberately misplay my character or else blow the GM's story plans.

Ah. Good times.

Basically, capturing the party like this removes player agency. In a game all about player agency.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I might make a suggestion:

Stick with Core Rules only. While there is a great deal of material for Pathfinder, the more you add, the more complicated things get. For people new to the system, sticking with the Core Rules will allow for an enjoyable experience without putting too much pressure to you as GM.

Then, once you guys have a game under your belt, you can start to explore the expanded rules more.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tend not to impute illegal builds with malfeasance on the part of the build unless I have definitive proof. This game is difficult and it's easy to screw up. Heck, Salindurthas just pointed out a mistake I have been making all this time in the thread.

That being said, it's important to constantly audit your characters to make sure that you're not making a mistake.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, for starters, Explosive Missile (The ability to add your bomb to a arrow) and Fast Bombs (The ability to throw multiple bombs in a round) don't work together. Fast Bombs requires a full-round action and Explosive Missile is a standard action.

So he can't possibly shoot TWO bomb arrows a round. He gets 1. Period.

Second, his bomb arrows have to hit regular AC, not touch AC like normal bombs.

Third, use some foes with fire resistance against him. Resist 10 fire will hurt his damage without negating it completely and give the other players the ability to shine. Heck, if it also has DR/5, he's in a LOT of trouble. That's 5 damage off his arrow and 10 off his bomb.

Fourth: Make sure that there are mooks for him to waste his bombs on. Alchemists have a very limited amount of bombs. If the big bad guys have some weak minions with them, they can soak up some of those bombs meant for big bad.

Fifth: Make sure you're not just doing 1 fight a day. Classes like Alchemists are going to look nuts if just do one fight a day because they can just go Hiroshima on whatever you throw at them with impunity. If they have to go through like 4 fights a day, with 4 or so enemies in each fight, he's gonna run out of bombs.

Sixth: Remember that bombs crits work similar to sneak attack. The bomb's damage is 1d6, the rest of the d6 are additional damage that doesn't get doubled. If a 4d6 bomb crits, it's 5d6, not 8d6.

Seventh: You DO get a save for the splash damage. And it's not save for half, it's save to negate entirely.

Eighth: Don't give the Alchemist all day to buff. Make him chose between drinking a extract and shooting an arrow. His mutagen lasts 80 minutes and take an hour to rebrew. Keep track of time. You can wait for his mutagen to be wearing off and then drop a time sensitive mission in their lap.

Ninth: Put something up in his face. Make him take attacks of opportunity for shooting those bomb arrows.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread hurts my soul.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.

1st Rule of GMing: The players will never do what you want them to do.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm quite convinced that Grease is the best 1st level spell in the game.

I can't tell you how many times I have ruined a foe's day by Greasing their awesome weapon of awesomeness.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is from an article from 3.5 on the DnD Website about Illusions, this is an excerpt from part 4

All About Illusions (part 4) wrote:

Using Figments Well

As noted in Part One, spellcasters often make the mistake of trying to use figment spells (such as silent image, minor image, and major image) to make something look like something else. Figment spells don't do that -- you need a glamer spell for the task. You can craft a figment to fit in with its surroundings or to conceal something. Consider these situations:

A party wishes to hide in a dungeon room just beyond an archway.

You cannot use a figment to make the archway look like an unbroken wall. You can, however, use a figment to make the archway look like it has been bricked up; the edges of the bricked area will conform to the archway. You also could use a figment to create an illusory door that fills the doorway. You could even include hinges for the door (set atop the frame of the arch) and a big lock.

You wish to draw some bad guys into an ambush by creating a false oasis in the desert.

You cannot use a figment to make empty sand look like an oasis. You still can create an illusory oasis with one or more figment effects. You can create an illusory pool of water to fill a depression in the sand, and you can sprinkle the area with illusory palm trees and undergrowth.

If the area is very flat, you won't be able to create a believable figment pool of water, but you might get away with a spring where water bubbles to the surface and soaks back into the sand.

A party caught in the open wants to hide from an airborne foe.

A figment can't make the party look like they aren't there. It can, however, make them a place to hide. You could use a figment spell to make an illusory house, a grove of trees (with leafy branches for concealment), or even a hill or big rock. The party will be concealed so long as the characters stay underneath the illusion.

A Few Additional Notes on Figments

The foregoing examples also serve to illustrate concepts from Parts Two and Three:

Characters hiding behind or under the illusions here need to make saving throws to successfully disbelieve them (assuming they want to do so). The caster, however, knows the illusions aren't real. If the caster points out the illusions, the characters get a +4 bonus on their saves; in this case, the DM might want to waive the saving throws and assume disbelief to save time.

In any case, a successful saving throw against a figment spell reveals the figment to be unreal, but still visible (if it's a visible figment) as a see-through outline. This is helpful to characters using a figment for concealment because they can see right through the figment and also know exactly where the figment is so that they can remain concealed.

In many cases, creatures who are unaware that illusion magic is at work probably will not gain saving throws to disbelieve the figments in these examples. A creature in the vicinity of one of these figments probably would pass right by without taking any action to study or interact with the figment and gain a saving throw. This, however, applies only to creatures passing casually though the area. A creature that is deliberately searching for the party that the figments in these examples conceal probably will poke around long enough to gain a saving throw through study or interaction (or might simply stumble through the figment). Likewise, a creature that is very familiar with the locale where the figments have been placed probably will note the sudden appearance of a new feature and gain an immediate saving throw (because doors, oases, and hills don't just spring up in a matter of minutes or hours usually).

Hopefully this clears up the confusion

The big thing to take away from this is that a figment REQUIRES open space to work and you can't use 2D images and forced perspective to make a figment do the work of a glammer spell.

To use the Lava pit example from above:

You cannot use a figment to create a flat image of 3D lava on a floor. HOWEVER, if you were to excavate a pit in the floor, you could fill that pit in the floor with Illusory lava. I actually really like this example because once you understand it, it becomes a lot easier to figure out what can be a figment and what can't be.

I hope this helps. Here is the link to the sourced article All About Illusions (Part Four)

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as a favorite.

If someone rolls two natural 20s on the die, and you won't let that be a critical hit, because they didn't hit the target's AC with a natural 20 on the confirmation roll, you're like some kind of monster I don't even want to know.

Like...scary evil, you know?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, I was thinking about this for a while, and I realized that there IS a practical use for Appraise: Wizards who make clever use of Shrink Item.

I mean think about it:

How many times have you been in a dungeon and come up to some giant statue made of gold or diamonds or whatever, and you're like "Man, how much is that worth?" and your GM goes "It's clearly too big and too heavy for you to carry" at which point you get out your scroll of Shrink Item, turn it into a clothlike version of itself 1/16th it's size and fold it up and put it into your backpack.

Then you ask your GM: "Appraise?"

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
And, if you would please, hit the FAQ button. What if we're wrong?

Well, considering Sean K Reynolds marked my 1st post as a favorite, I would take that as pretty good sign that we're not wrong, him being a developer n' all.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Would you all say the same about the Magus spell recall ability?

Magus spell recall works exactly the same. You're basically spending points from your arcane pool to "buy back" a spell slot.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, yes it does let you exceed your spells per day limit. Your GM is wrong. A pearl of power is almost effectively buying a new spell slot.

If I have Grease prepared, and I cast it, I can then use my pearl of power and get back that Grease spell and cast it again.

The only real limitation of a pearl of power is that you must have prepared the spell you are getting back.

I can't therefore prepare and cast Grease, and then use my pearl of power to get back lets say Color Spray, which I did not prepare.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
Stealth is actually a pretty bad skill if people ran it the way it's supposed to be run.
Stealth is good if you run it the way it's supposed to be run, only when people try to be RAW maniac there can be problems.

The problem is everyone I've ever played with runs Stealth like it's World of Warcraft, a skill you just turn on or off and you suddenly are invisible.

Stealth does not work that way.

I can't tell you how many times I've been playing and people are like "I Stealth over there" and it's like "how do you stop the guard from seeing you" and the response is "I'm stealthing...duh" to which I wanna reply "Across an open courtyard in broad daylight with no cover or concealment."

And they look at me like I'M the stupid one.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, the Domain Powers are based off of Wisdom.

But look at it this way.

If you dump Charisma, in favor of intelligence, you are purposely dumping an area you ARE good at (Channeling Positive Energy) for an area you are NOT good at.

Look at it this way.

If you Dump Charisma to 7, you only have 1 channel each day. Meanwhile, with a 12 INT, you are going to have 4 skills (assuming you're human).

If you dump Intelligence to 7, you have 2 skills (3 if you do favored class bonus) and 4 channels a day.

The fact of the matter is clerics are not skill monkeys, and if you try to make them a skill monkey, you're gonna have a bad time.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.


Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist bombs are powerful, but limited resource


If he is doing 3 bombs a round, he's going to run out quickly. At 9th level, he's only going to have about 16-18 bombs if he's built his alchemist entirely around bombs. That's 5-6 rounds of bombing and then he's done for the day

As Cheapy pointed out, a round of force bombs is only ~60 damage. That's not much at 9th level.

Also, consider his feats: Does he have precise shot? Is he within range? Bombs only have a 20ft range.

On my mad bomber character, I'm often taking a -6, sometimes -8 to hit. While I'm still targeting touch, that hurts.

Also, don't forget that if a force bomb knocks someone prone, the subsequent bombs take another -4 to hit.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think if you're going to pick an opposition school, you should probably go with Divination over Abjuration if you're really worried about it. It's not that you can't do Abjuration, but it's a bit trickier.

The only thing that's going to stink is that

1: you won't start with Detect Magic and Read Magic in your spellbook, but that's ok because you can pay another wizard to transcribe them into your spellbook and it doesn't cost more than like I think 5g to do so.

2: You take 2 slots to prepare Detect Magic. You don't have to worry about Read Magic since you don't have to prepare it every day (and can even wand it if you like).

That being said, the small hit to your cantrip casting ability isn't going to hurt you in the long run. After all, of the divination spells:

Comprehend Languages makes an excellent scroll
Identify makes an EXCELLENT wand
See Invisibility makes a excellent scroll
Tongues makes an excellent scroll

That covers all the useful spells for your 1st three spell levels in Divination. As long as you keep some of those on hand, you should be fine.

As for Familiars...I would go with either a Rat to boost your Fort Saves or a Raven since they speak and fly, which means you can send them out to scout relatively safely.

Understand that your 1st familiar is NOT a combat pet. It can deliver touch spell. That is a bad idea. It will get killed. If it flies, have it fly safely above combat. If it doesn't, keep it in your backpack, or some other pouch.

Once you get Improved Familiar at 7th level, you can can get a little bolder because the familiar will have stuff you can use to keep it alive. By this point you should have a small arsenal of wands and scrolls to give the familiar.

Don't forget the familiar can also wear magic gear too if it's appropriate! (obviously if the familiar doesn't have feet for example, it can't wear boots). Efficient Quivers for wands are great.

Like I said, if you're worried about the Imp for some reason, go with a Mephit. My advice however would be to ask the GM and ask your party if anyone has a problem with you taking an Imp. If your GM is going to screw with you or if there is a cleric or paladin that will make a big stink, it might be best to go Mephit, but otherwise, I think Imp is best for the Invisibility at will. Also, if you sac divination, your Imp detects magic constantly so it can be your detect magic monkey.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
7th level Feat: Improved Familiar (Imp)

Imps come with a GM license to screw with you because the imp profits if you die while evil. You've also made a deal with a devil. The GM is within his rights to treat having an imp familiar as a continuing evil act, which will put you in an evil alignment over time.

The Arbiter is a far superior choice for roleplaying purposes as a neutral character, and is in many ways mechanically superior. It has slightly less variety in SLAs and poorer flight maneuverability, but has hands with which to UMD and is better at touch spell delivery because it has flyby attack and regeneration. The Arbiter also has

Constructed (Ex): Although inevitables are living outsiders , their bodies are constructed of physical components, and in many ways they function as constructs. For the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger’s favored enemy and bane weapons), inevitables count as both outsiders and constructs. They are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). Inevitables are not subject to nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. They are not at risk of death from massive damage. They have bonus hit points as constructs of their size.
which makes them immune to quite a few of the things that regeneration doesn't protect them from.

You missed the part where he said that it's Core only. If it had not been core only, I would have suggested Lyrakien Azata in a heartbeat.

Also, I don't really see Imp Familiar as giving the GM carte blanch authority to screw with you. You are magically bonded to it after all.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HaraldKlak wrote:

Druid 4/Barbarian 4

Shaping focus for wildshape as lvl 8.

- Stegosaurus has a 4d6 tail attack.
- With Imp Natural Attack, that is 6d6.
- Strong Jaw'ed that becomes 12d6.
- Vital Striked thats 24d6.
- Furious Finish deals 144+various bonusses.

If you dip a level of oracle after that and take the lame curse, you become immune to the fatigue condition and can Furious Finish every round.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I say don't sac evocation (and Necromancy) because it has some good spells in it.

Early on, there's not a whole of lot juicy stuff. However, later on evocation gets:

Wall of Force
The Hand Spells (Interposing, Grasping, Crushing, ect.)
Chain Lightning

Necromancy gets stuff like

Waves of Fatigue/Exhaustion
Magic Jar

And those are good spells you will use a lot. And they're higher level, and you don't have a whole lot of slots at higher level.

Divination has some nice stuff, but rarely anything you prepare daily besides Detect Magic, and to be honest, you can get by with one less cantrip.

Most of the good stuff in Abjuration makes a fine Wand or Scroll.

Shield: Wand
Protection From Evil: Wand
Resist Energy: Scroll or Staff
Dispel Magic: Scroll
Magic Circle: Scroll
Dimensional Anchor: Scroll
Stoneskin: Scroll
Dispel Magic, Greater: Scroll
Spell Turning: Scroll
Mind Blank: Scroll

Heck, the only spells in abjuration I really wouldn't want to see on a scroll are Prismatic Wall, Prismatic Sphere and Mage's Disjunction.

No evil familiars is a houserule. The rule simply says that if you can only select a familiar that is one step away from you on the alignment axis (which is one of the reasons you chose neutral. The other being that if you are neutral, you can chose whether to apply the celestial or fiendish templates when summoning and can summon all outsiders). If your DM is going to houserule it, find out in advance.

If you can't have a Imp, go with a Mephit. The familiar is important because it buys you action economy, and action economy is king.

Without a familiar, you can either active that 1st level wand and buff someone or you can cast that 5th level spell the party needs.

WITH the familiar, you can delegate the wand to the familiar and cast the spell you need yourself, giving yourself 2 actions a round.

Use the Rod of Extend spell to extend some of your hour/level duration spells like Mage Armor and Rope Trick and Phantom Steed.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Elf (You get a bonus to your two most important stats and Spell Penetration, try to offset your Con penalty)

Be neutral

Do your best to start with a 20 int.

OP Schools: Enchantment and either Abjuration or Divination. I like Divination although it will make Detect Magic use up 2 cantrips, but it's worth it IMHO

Get a familiar, since Greensting Scorpion is out, go with Rat or Rave. It has no purpose other than to allow you to take improved familiar

1st Feat: Spell Focus, Conjuration
2nd Feat: Improved Initiative
3rd Feat: Augmented Summoning
7th level Feat: Improved Familiar (Imp)

At some point you should probably get Toughness and Craft Wonderous Item

Make sure to put points into UMD for your familiar

As for gear:

Get a Rod of Extend Spell and a Headband of Int +2 and a Ring of Sustenance ASAP

1st Level spells:

Color Spray
Mage Armor
Protection From Evil
Silent Image
Enlarge Person
Unseen Servant

2nd Level Spells

Resist Energy
Mirror Image
Rope Trick

3rd Level

Magic Circle Against Evil
Stinking Cloud
Summon Monster 3

Get a wand of:
Protection Evil
Obscurring Mist
Enlarge Person
Magic Missile

When you get your Imp at 7th level, get him an efficient quiver, stick all your 1st level wands in it, and make him your wand b****. It's like having a 2nd wizard on the field pulling buff duty except that wizard has fly and invisibility at will.

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Posted from the Bleed thread to avoid OT discussion

Bleed in the CRB: Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage (even if the bleed is ability damage).

Bleed in the Beastiary: This bleeding can be stopped by a successful DC 15 Heal skill check or through the application of any magical healing.

Under the CRB definition, Channeled Energy does not stop bleed damage because it explicitly says Spells, while channeled energy is a Supernatural ability.

Under the Beastiary, it would because the Beastiary says magical healing, and supernatural abilities qualify as magical.

Furthermore, Regeneration and Fast Healing do not explicitly state that they stop bleeding, and since they're both extraordinary abilities, neither stops bleed RAW, however it doesn't make a great deal of sense that they wouldn't stop bleeding wounds, ESPECIALLY Regeneration, which can even grow back severed limbs.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

Poor Alchemists with their not-actually-spells!

Eh, what does RAW matter anyways when it clashes.

I have found that the importance of RAW depends greatly on whether or not it helps your side of the argument.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

And yet Bleed Damage bypasses DR and persists until it is healed. It also helps when you miss on subsequent rounds.

It also forces casters to make concentration checks.

The point is that as a combat class, you're going to be looking to stack as much damage as possible, and I don't think bleed damage should be dismissed. It's not perfect, but nothing is.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why everyone is being such a downer on Bleed damage.

It's free damage, that isn't subject to DR, that persists round after round, and requires the enemy to chew an action to stop.

Who cares if fights only last a few rounds, damage is damage.

That's like saying "I don't think I'll take weapon specialization, cause it's only 2 damage and fights only last a few rounds."

Silver Crusade

46 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

For starters, lets begin by analyzing the text of the rule.

APG wrote:
Reach (Ex): One of an eidolon's attacks is capable of striking at foes at a distance. Pick one attack. The eidolon's reach with that attack increases by 5 feet.

Seems simple enough at first glance. But the devil is in the details here.

As far as I see it, there are two problems, or should I say questions, that arise with the Reach evolution.

1st: Does the reach evolution apply to one attack, one attack evolution, or one type of attack?

When talking about the reach evolution, I typically see people split into 3 camps:

Camp 1: The reach evolution applies to ONE attack, so if an eidolon has 6 claws, it applies to ONE claw.

Camp 2: The reach evolution applies to one attack EVOLUTION, so if an eidolon has 6 claws, it applies to TWO claws.

Camp 3: The reach evolution applies to one attack FORM, so if an eidolon has 6 claws, it applies to all SIX claws.

So at first glance, this seems like a no brainer, lets look at the text of the rule again:

APG wrote:
Reach (Ex): One of an eidolon's attacks is capable of striking at foes at a distance. Pick one attack. The eidolon's reach with that attack increases by 5 feet.

Well that seems like it solves the problem right? After all, it says clearly one attack doesn't it? So the award goes to camp 1.

Well, hold your horses there. If rules meant what they said and said what they meant, lawyers wouldn't have a job. The reality of life is that a rule that might seem clear at first glance can be made incredibly complex if you look at it long enough.

The problem here comes from another sourcebook: Ultimate Magic.

You see, Ultimate Magic contains the following.

Ultimate Magic:

The eidolon looks like an aberrant aquatic creature such as an aboleth.

25 points: Base Form aquatic; Primary Evolutions reach (tentacles), tentacles (2); Secondary Evolutions basic magic (ghost sound), huge, large, major magic (minor image), minor magic (silent image), tentacles (2), ultimate magic (major image).

And thus here is our problem: As you can see above, in the Aboleth, the Reach evolution is being applied to tentacles, plural.

Now, notice that the Tentacle evolution is a SINGULAR evolution, which seems like not only does it defy the crowd that says that reach applies to one attack, but also the crowd that says that it applies to one attack evolution.

There's also some other reasoning for this interpretation, abilities that modify natural attacks typically affect the attack FORM.

But I can hear you saying: "Other evolutions that effect the attack form specifically call that out" and well...you're right.

Take a look at Improved Damage

APG wrote:
Improved Damage (Ex): One of the eidolon's natural attacks is particularly deadly. Select one natural attack form and increase the damage die type by one step. This evolution can be selected more than once. Its effects do not stack. Each time an eidolon selects this evolution, it applies to a different natural attack.

This text admittedly creates problems. One of the first things to know when interpreting a rule is that you are supposed to assume that everything is done with a purpose. If one line of text says "natural attack" and one says "natural attack form," we are supposed to assume that the word "form" was purposely left out of the first line of text.

So this creates a problem. The rules as written and the rules as interpreted both suggest that the Reach evolution applies to one attack.

However, the very SAME rules as applied by the same people suggest that it applies to one attack FORM.

This is even more problematic when you consider question 2.

2nd: Can the reach evolution be taken more than once?

Lets go back and start again by first looking at rules text.

We'll start this time with the general rule for evolutions:

APG wrote:


Each eidolon receives a number of evolution points that can be spent to give the eidolon new abilities, powers, and other upgrades. These abilities, called evolutions, can be changed whenever the summoner gains a new level, but they are otherwise set. Some evolutions require that the eidolon have a specific base form or the summoner be of a specific level before they can be chosen. A number of evolutions grant the eidolon additional natural attacks. Natural attacks listed as primary are made using the eidolon's full base attack bonus and add the eidolon's Strength modifier on damage rolls. Natural attacks listed as secondary are made using the eidolon's base attack bonus – 5 and add 1/2 the eidolon's Strength modifier on damage rolls (if positive). If the eidolon only has a single natural attack, the attack is made using its full base attack bonus and it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier on damage rolls made with that attack, regardless of the attack's type.

Evolutions are grouped by their cost in evolution points. Evolution points cannot be saved. All of the points must be spent whenever the summoner gains a level. Unless otherwise noted, each evolution can only be selected once.

OK! So we now know that unless the rules tell us otherwise, we can only take an evolution once.

so lets look at Reach again:

APG wrote:
Reach (Ex): One of an eidolon's attacks is capable of striking at foes at a distance. Pick one attack. The eidolon's reach with that attack increases by 5 feet.

...uh oh. I don't see rules text there that tells us that reach can be taken more than once. Furthermore:

APG wrote:
Improved Damage (Ex): One of the eidolon's natural attacks is particularly deadly. Select one natural attack form and increase the damage die type by one step. This evolution can be selected more than once. Its effects do not stack. Each time an eidolon selects this evolution, it applies to a different natural attack.

This is bad for us too, because as I said earlier, if there is text present somewhere, and absent elsewhere, we have to assume that the absence is purposeful. Therefore, we have to assume that because they explicitly say that the improved damage evolution can be taken more than once, and because that rules text is absent from Reach, reach therefore cannot be taken more than once.

I can already see you saying "Wait a min..."

Ultimate Magic:

The eidolon looks like an aberrant aquatic creature such as an aboleth.

25 points: Base Form aquatic; Primary Evolutions reach (tentacles), tentacles (2); Secondary Evolutions basic magic (ghost sound), huge, large, major magic (minor image), minor magic (silent image), tentacles (2), ultimate magic (major image).

Yep...we've returned to the Aboleth problem. Because you see, if you were in Camp 1, one way to potentially explain the Aboleth would be to say "They meant take Reach for each tentacle." Which would make sense, even if it would be a terrible way to word it.

But now it looks like that's not a possible solution. So we're back to the issue: How does the Aboleth eidolon apply the reach evolution to two tentacles?

Furthermore, take a look at this:

Serpentine Eidolon:

Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 20 ft., climb 20 ft.; AC +2 natural armor; Saves Fort (bad), Ref (good), Will (good); Attack bite (1d6), tail slap (1d6); Ability Scores Str 12, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 11; Free Evolutions bite, climb, reach (bite), tail, tail slap.

It seems like the Serpentine Eidolon has taken the liberty for us of deciding that the reach evolution is going to go with the bite. The obvious question here would be "Does this preclude me from ever taking reach with a Serpentine" to which I would have to say...I don't know.


Take a look at this:


The eidolon looks like a multi-headed hydra. This model creates a five-headed hydra. A cryohydra or pyrohydra can be created by adding the breath weapon and immunity evolutions, resulting in a 26-point model.

20 points: Base Form serpentine; Primary Evolutions bite, head; Secondary Evolutions bite (3), fast healing, head (3), large.

YIKES! Now we've got a big problem here. This build is supposed to give us a 5 headed hydra by adding 4 more heads and 4 more bites to the standard Serpentine Eidolon.

But now we know that the Serpentine Eidolon already has Reach (bite). Now this leads us to an interesting pickle:

According to the rules, the Reach evolution can only be taken once.

If Camp 1 (and for this example, Camp 2) are right: We have an Eidolon with 5 heads, but only one has Reach, and we can't give any of the other heads reach, because we can only take the Reach evolution once.

If Camp 3 is right: We have an Eidolon with 5 heads, and all 5 heads have reach. This seems to me to be a lot more in line with the idea of a hydra and probably what was intended with the design.

So that's kinda where I'm at.


1st: Does the reach evolution apply to one attack, one attack evolution, or one type of attack? I say one type of attack because of how the evolution is applied in Ultimate Magic.

2nd: Can the reach evolution be taken more than once? I say no, based on the text, although it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially if your answer to question 1 is that Reach only applies to one attack, period.

If you wouldn't mind FAQing this, I would appreciate it. I doubt we'll get clarification soon, but it doesn't hurt to try.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Comparing a narrative like the Hobbit to the mechanics of Pathfinder in specific and Pen and Paper RPGs in general is not a wise idea. I know that we all love Tolkien and he inspires much of what we do, but middle earth and the world of table top games are not the same.

Btw way, While having Gandalf being raised every time he dies wouldn't have made for a great story, neither does having Gandalf be a Deux Ex Machina that saves the day whenever the heroes get into trouble that they can't get out of, and yet that's what Gandalf is.

Because that's what you're saying when you try to bring Gandalf into middle earth: You're saying that whenever the party gets in over there head, a freaking Solar should just appear out of nowhere, solve the problem and then turn into a old man with prestidigitation afterwards, until the next problem shows up. Because that's exactly what Gandalf is: a character who is as powerful as the plot demands he be.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you plan on using Craft (Alchemy), the feat Master Alchemist is almost a must have:

Prerequisite: Craft (alchemy) 5 ranks.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on Craft (alchemy) checks, and you may create mundane alchemical items much more quickly than normal. When making poisons, you can create a number of doses equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1) at one time. These additional doses do not increase the time required, but they do increase the raw material cost.

In addition, whenever you make alchemical items or poisons using Craft (alchemy), use the item’s gp value as its sp value when determining your progress (do not multiply the item’s gp cost by 10 to determine its sp cost).

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:

I mean, it sounds a bit like you can't actually fail a quest so it has consequences, like it's just "the dragon killed you, roll up a new char and try again." in my games, that would be "the dragon killed you, in the weeks your party is looking for someone to fill in for you the dragon roams freely, torching villages and eating people."

The rules themselves do not say that you can always just roll up a new character, that's just something most games have. Exactly how easy it is to get that character in the game differs from table to table, and I guess if you run a "Catarina the Copy is just around the next bend in the dungeon, ready to join up with you!" game I can see raise dead not increasing the effectiveness of your party.

And yes, removing heavy debuffs such as _death_ is increasing party power, or there'd be no reason not to remove all those debuffs in the first place.

Well, here's the problem with "The dragon pillaged the village while you were gone."

The player response is: Ok, we failed, new game.

Because frankly, there's no point is sticking around and playing a game in which there is no chance for success. No one is going to play a game they can't win.

Which means that as a DM, you have to build in some way for the heroes to fix the problem. Which ultimately means that you've just padded out the length of the adventure.

I mean, I get that failure of a mission needs to have consequences, but they need to be consequences that the players can RECTIFY, otherwise there's no point in continuing the adventure.

You are correct in that the rules don't say that you just always get to roll up a new character when one dies, but think about it this way.

You've got a person who's playing the game, and they die. What now? Do you force them to sit there with their thumb up their bottom while the rest of the party has fun? Because that's boring and a bit mean on the behalf of the others if I do say.

As for debuffs: Removing a Debuff, any debuff, including death, can NEVER, ever INCREASE party power.

Let me be clear about this:

Party has a certain level of power, where power is X.

Party suffers a debuff, -1 to power

Party power is now X - 1

Party removes the debuff

Party power is now once again X

Party power is NOT X + 1

Removing a debuff results in a restoration of power that was LOST, not an increase in power.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Making 15 characters is difficult because it means I have to make time to do it. Which is "difficult" to do, not "tedious". But this is just a semantic pissing contest now.

Well, without getting into "a semantics ******* contest*

The game rules aren't supposed to take into account how often or how long you have to make new characters and then somehow incorporate that into the rules as a tax on a certain spell. It just doesn't make good sense.

It takes me 10 minutes to build a new character on Hero Lab. I've also played in a campaign where I only had to make one new character. Should the rules take that into account as well?

No, to suggest so would be a bit silly. The rules should exist to facilitate the gameplay and character creation is not a part of the gameplay.

Lets compare wish with raise dead for a moment.

With a spell like wish, it makes sense to have an expensive material component because wish has the ability to significantly increase the party's power. With wish, I can permanently increase my ability scores or outright slay a foe.

Raise Dead CANNOT increase the party's power. It can only restore power that the party has lost. The very best it can do is restore the status quo that existed before the death.

Now, it might save you time, and that might be fantastic. But the time it saves you does not confer an in game benefit. It doesn't make you hit harder or better. You're not a better spellcaster. You don't jump, or swim, or stealth or bluff any better. Therefore, there's no reason to have such a heavy tax on the spell.

To put it another way:

Lets say that I have 20 dollars. Now, lets say I wake up one day, and have lost my 20 dollars. Raise Dead is the equivalent of getting my 20 dollars back. I haven't GAINED anything, I've just restored what was lost to me.

Now, lets say instead that I had 20 dollars and then I wiggle my hands a bit and create another 20 dollars. That's wish. I am now wealthier than I was before I casted the spell.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Elamdri, the adventure is going to be a lot easier for me as a player if I don't have to create 15 new characters during the campaign.

Incorrect. The adventure will be less TEDIOUS. It's a common mistake to equate tedium with difficulty.

Just become something takes a long time or is boring doesn't mean it's difficult or requires some exceptional amount of skill.

Creating a character is time consuming, not difficult.

Not to mention that whether or not it's difficult to create a character shouldn't really have any bearing on the calculus of game balance. Character creation is something that's done above table, outside of the game. The rules are there to facilitate gameplay at the table.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
being able to raise the dead 15 times during an adventure does make it much easier.

except that what you just said is impossible. It's impossible for Raise Dead to make the game EASIER. It's possible for Raise Dead to make the game less TEDIOUS, but being tedious and being difficult are not the same thing.

Raise Dead does not:

Make it easier for you to hit a monster
Make you better at any of your skills
Make you faster
Make any of your ability scores increase
Make you deal more damage with attacks/spells
Make your spells more difficult to resist
Make your saves better.

Those are the things that make the game "Easier." Raise Dead does NONE of those things.

If Bob, Sally, Marco, and Felicia are adventuring in the woods, and an Owlbear kills Bob, if the party spends 5,000 gold to Raise Bob:

The party is no stronger than it was before Bob died.
Bob is weaker than he was before he died.
The party is 5000g poorer than it was.

If they then spend the 2,000k gold to get Bob's negative levels removed:

The party is STILL no stronger than it was before Bob died.
Bob is EXACTLY as strong as he was before he died.
The party is now 7,000g poorer than it was.

Neither one of these scenarios have made the game easier for the party

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
PatientWolf wrote:
You sir, are taking this thread way more seriously than the majority. From now on we expect to see some serious innuendo in your posts! :)

*reads the previous pages*

Ah...um...yes...well it appear I have in fact done that doesn't it.


How about this:

"Succubi are very sexually attractive because they have ideal physical proportions and are scantily clad. Grappling with them is also humorous because grappling is akin to what humans due whenever they engage in coitus. Therefore, grappling with a succubus is visually similar to engaging with coitus with the succubus and since succubi are sexually attractive, this is a desirable outcome. For some reason, this is also a humorous outcome"

how'd I do?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm totally in camp 4.

Not the season for ice cream.

Hot chocolate cake?

I live in Florida. It's always the Season for ice cream.

1 to 50 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>